Early this month, President George W. Bush vetoed the $23 billion water bill, noting “Americans sent us to Washington to achieve results and be good stewards of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This bill violates that fundamental commitment.”

Previously, the House approved the measure on Aug. 1 by a 381-40 vote, and the Senate approved it 81-12 on Sept. 24.

Immediately following the president’s veto message, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) went before the media saying, “When we override this irresponsible veto, perhaps the president will finally recognize that Congress is an equal branch of government and reconsider his many other reckless veto threats.”

Reid’s statement uncorked a chorus of comments from spendthrift Democrats and Republicans in both chambers signaling their intentions.

Here’s a sample:

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said, “I am 100 percent confident that we can override this veto.”

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) said, “We didn’t overspend; the president under-funded.”

The presidential veto even brought together Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairwoman and ranking member of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.

As federal lawmakers approached the vote to override, Republican and Democrat members said “the veto showed Bush was out of touch with the American people and vowed to move forward with the bill”.

Then last week they voted again.

First, on Tuesday, the House overwhelmingly met the two-thirds majority needed to override with a tally of 361 to 54.

Two days later, on Thursday, the Senate voted overwhelmingly 79 to 14 to overturn the president’s veto, giving final approval to a $23-billion bill that authorizes water projects eagerly sought by spendthrifts in both parties.

Now that the legislation has become law, let’s take a brief look. I say “brief” because the legislation, titled The ‘Water Resources Development Act,” will spend billions of taxpayer dollars to “fund more than 900 projects around the country.”

More specifically, the $23 billion will be spent on projects to “help restore and bolster wetlands, flood control, hurricane mitigation and coastal restoration programs in Louisiana; the revival of the Florida Everglades, new locks on the upper Mississippi and Illinois rivers and dozens of dredging, and broad wetlands restoration and flood control efforts around the country”.

In other words, now that The Water Resources Development Act has been passed over the president’s veto, the bill will provide something for everybody — in Congress.

Here are some examples for you:

• Funding for a study on the impact on navigation of the proposed Knik Arm Bridge (renamed Don Young’s Way) at Cook Inlet in Alaska (Sec. 4005);

• Riverfront development to enhance recreation in Perth Amboy, N.J. (Sec. 4048);

• Ecosystem restoration of the Walla Walla River Basin in Washington (Sec. 4063);

• $5.3 million for construction of Lake Lanier Olympic Center in Georgia (Sec. 5061);

• $65 million for a Lido Key Beach, Fla., replenishment project (Sec. 3036).

• $21 million for Imperial Beach, Calif., beach replenishment;

• $101 million for beach replenishment at Ocean City, Sea Isle City and contiguous New Jersey seashore resorts;

• $59 million for central New Jersey seashore beach replenishment;

• $122 million for beach replenishment in northern New Jersey; and so on.

Let’s summarize by recapping what the executive branch had to say prior to the congressional override vote.

Calling the legislation “fiscally irresponsible,” White House Press Secretary Dana Perino pointed out that “the water projects in the bill fall outside the scope of the Army Corps of Engineers’ mission” and many of the projects “lack any sense of merit.”

Perino added, “It’s by far the costliest U.S. Army Corps of Engineers authorization ever sent to a president’s desk.”

That’s accurate.

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) had praised President Bush for his wisdom in vetoing the bill. This “is a welcome opportunity for Congress to modify the flawed, bloated bill. Instead of trying to override the veto, Congress should take this opportunity to fix the bill” said Feingold.

But Congress did not.

Following the veto override, Senator Feingold stated “Instead of the reform bill that the country needs, this bill is simply the latest example of (congressional) business as usual.”

I agree.

Especially when we realize what Senator Feingold didn’t say publicly!

That is, the fact that the House conferees took a $15-billion original bill and the Senate conferees took a $14-billion original bill into joint conference and instead of splitting the difference, emerged with a “compromise” that costs over $23 billion.

Instead, in overwhelming numbers in both the House and Senate, members choose to put rancid pork in the water bill and then joint conferees threw even more pork into the water.

In this instance, the president was right to veto and the Congress was wrong to override.

With Congress getting their way, the bloated Water Resources Development Act leaves American taxpayers will yet another bad taste in their mouths.